We of course are just reading and evaluating this decision ourselves.  We
well be meeting with and discussing future options and ramifications with
our legal representatives, but for now, here is the response from KWUA.

We are obviously disappointed in this decision from the 9th Circuit.  We
believe that the Biological Opinion (BO) in question clearly reflected NOAA
fisheries best judgment as to the long term viability of the species. That
BO struck a reasonable balance between the science of the Hardy flow
requirements and that of the NRC Report.  The court obviously focused their
attention strictly on the Hardy science and brushed off the concerns raised
by the NRC committee.

The "Reasonable and Prudent Alternative" (RPA) identified by NOAA Fisheries
calls for 57% plus water bank water up to 100,000 additional acre feet by
year 2005, and concludes that the species will not be jeopardized as long as
by year 2011 the full 100% flow is achieved.

This courts ruling is Arbitrary and Capricious.

Finally, we believe this is another prime example of why the ESA should be
updated and amended. Anti agriculture groups have used this act once again
not to aid in recovery of the species, but more as a tool to try and derail
the Klamath Irrigation project.

The Klamath project accounts for less than 4% of the water resource in the
entire watershed. Recovery of this species can not be done solely on the
backs of these family farms.

Greg Addington
Executive Director
Klamath Water Users Association